Hi All,

 

Does anyone know if there have been any studies looking at redundancy in publications.  What I'm thinking is that a research article might contain 3,000 words but how much is actually useful to an individual clinician who might just want a clinical bottom line?  Alternatively, a clinical guideline might be 10,000 words but the clinician might know most of it already - but there's a nugget of evidence/guidance that they need.

 

I appreciate that different clinicians will gain different things from the same article (and that it's important to know on what foundations a research/guidelines statement is made).  I'm just wondering if this has ever been described?  I'm seeing it in a similar light as the work carried out in HIRU with EvidenceUpdates (http://plus.mcmaster.ca/EvidenceUpdates/) which removes 'junk' at an article level. 

 

Apologies if the question is poorly phrased...!

 

Best wishes

 

jon

 

Jon Brassey

TRIP Database